M/S. United India Insurance ... vs Gaddam Ashok
2022 Latest Caselaw 3227 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.2311 of 2018

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the award in M.V.O.P.No.812 of 2015, the

United India Insurance Company has preferred this appeal and

challenged the award passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal

at Nizamabad, where under, a sum of Rs.21,000/- was

awarded as compensation to the respondent/petitioner. The

said amount was awarded as compensation for the injuries

sustained to the respondent on account of road traffic accident

while he was traveling in a Tavera car.

2. As per the grounds of appeal filed before the

Court, the main contention of the appellant herein is about the

opinion of the Court below with regard to the income of the

deceased. The appellant has submitted that the

respondent/claimant was traveling in the said car as a

gratuitous passenger, thereby, the insurance company is not

liable to pay any compensation. According to the appellant,

the accident occurred due to the burst of the rear tyre of the car SSRN,J

and it amounts to technical defect thereby, the

appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay

compensation. Since the vehicle involved in an accident is a

private car, the insurance company is not liable to pay

compensation thereby, prayed for setting aside the award.

3. The above referred petition M.V.O.P.No.812 of

2015 was filed by the respondent/claimant under Section 166

of M.V. Act, for compensation on account of the accident in

which he suffered injuries. According to the averments made

in the petition by the time of the said accident, the respondent

was traveling in the Tavera vehicle from Hyderabad to his

village. The driver of the car drove the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner, and lost control over vehicle, thereby,

dashed a road side tree and the vehicle over turned causing

injuries to the inmates of the car including the respondent.

The respondent/claimant sought for an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- under various heads but the trial Court awarded

an amount of Rs.21,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

SSRN,J

5. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the award passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside as prayed for ?

6. The respondent/claimant pleaded before the Court

below that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month but the trial

Court opined in the absence of any proof about the actual

income, the same cannot be accepted and it came to the

conclusion that the respondent/claimant is entitled to an

amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings. The Court

below having accepted the evidence of injured and other

witnesses came to the conclusion that he was a third party, as

such, traveled in the vehicle from Hyderabad to his native

place and insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

The appellant herein could not place any evidence before the

Court below to substantiate the contention that the accident

occurred due to mechanical defect. Even though, RWs.1 and 2

are examined on behalf of the appellant herein, they could not

substantiate that the accident occurred due to mechanical

defect. It was elicited from RW.2 that a report issued by

Motor-vehicle Inspector shows that there was no such SSRN,J

mechanical defect and the respondent/claimant was a third

party to the policy. Therefore, the respondent/claimant is

entitled to receive compensation for the injuries caused to him.

The Court below rightly considered the evidence of respondent

and awarded minimum amount of Rs.21,000/- which includes

compensation for the injury, loss of earnings for one month,

thereby, there is no irregularity committed by the trial Court

and appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the result, appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

1st July, 2022.

PLV